On August 24, 2011, at the above hospital around 15:00, the Defendant carried out an rashing procedure (IPL) on the face of the victim E (the 30 years of age at the time, south, and the 30 years of age).

The doctor to conduct the rash operation shall check the rash for an appropriate time with the body in the state of the patient's skin and with the strength corresponding thereto. In particular, since this part is less than other parts, the rash is less than part than other parts, so it has the duty of care to conduct the operation so that the rash is not caused by the rashing of the rash, including the image, by lowering the strength of the rash.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so and performed an rash operation with excessive robbery on the part of the victim, such as the body and see, thereby causing salt to the skin of the victim.

As a result, the victim suffered an injury "after infection" where the number of days of treatment cannot be known.

2. Determination:

A. In order to recognize a doctor’s negligence in a medical malpractice case, a doctor’s negligence should be examined without fault, even though the doctor could have predicted the occurrence of the outcome, and the occurrence of the result could have been avoided.

Determination of the existence of negligence shall be made on the basis of the degree of ordinary attention engaged in the same work and duties, and this shall take into account the level of general medical science at the time of the accident, the medical environment and conditions, and the characteristics of medical practice.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do3711, Dec. 10, 1999). Moreover, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence of probative value, to the extent that there is no room for a judge to make reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true.

If the prosecutor’s proof does not reach such a level that it would lead to conviction, it is guilty.